Truthprovails

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Truthprovails, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! LongLiveMusic (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

LongLiveMusic (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sections on BLP talkpage

Please don't start multiple sections on the talkpage at the same time it makes conversation difficult. Also I'd suggest that you get consensus for the large-scale changes you are making by concentrating on one section at a time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Political Bias towards the British National Party on Wikipedia

As a member of the British National Party I've long been disgusted by the amount of bias and blatantly anti-BNP garbage that is on the Wikipedia article page for the BNP.

After reviewing the page, not only did I uncover broken links to out dated documents, but also loads of Tabloid muck racking stories and allegations from primarily left-wing media and anti-BNP websites. Many of these stories have been carefully positioned and presented on the page with selective wording to present a negative image of the BNP.

Quotes by ex-BNP officers or by Nick Griffin the party Chairman, are often quoted in the wrong context or selectively muted, or twisted to appear to be something they were never intended to be. Old issues are presented as current news. Negative stereo-type words and blanket terms like "racist", "nazi", "fascist" frequently occur over the article.

The whole page has a strong anti-BNP feel to it and an extremely negative bias about it. There is no mention of any the wrong-doings to the BNP or the good work the party does at the local or national level.

Attempts by myself and a couple of other individuals to just raise and address some of these issues and try to get the page factually correct and accurate, have been met with strong opposition from those moderating the page who clearly have an anti-BNP agenda which is apparent from messages exchanged on Talk. Even the broken link I removed to the out-dated (and now illegal) constitution was put back.

It's sad that, Wikipedia which presents itself as an impartial and useful source of information, has fallen under the control of mind-benders and truth-deniers who seek to use it to promote their own agenda of brainwashing and denying people the freedom to make their own informed opinion on things.

You should read the links provided to you in the welcome message. The article must reflect what is written in reliable sources and present analysis with the proper weight. In this case it means reporting what is written in the The Guardian and Searchlight. It may be that those sources are wrong-headed or biased, but that is an issue you would have to take up with them. Or provide reliable sources that present a different set of facts or analysis. But it would appear that no mainstream sources view the BNP favorably. TFD (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In addressing your point, the Guardian and Searchlight as already stated, are blatantly overtly anti-BNP and hostile towards the party. More so than most of the other media. It seems clear then, why editors with a political agenda have been chosen them as sources and why selective stories have been used which have little to do with the party or the actual politics of the BNP. So I put to you, what is the purpose of the article page? Is it to explain to people about the BNP as a political party (like other parties on Wikipedia), or is it to deter people from the BNP and to act as anti-BNP propaganda? If you claim to be impartial with no agenda, then why not allow simple corrections to the page such as the fixing of broken links, or the addition of useful and factual information? Truthprovails (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the page is to explain how the BNP is seen in reliable sources such as Searchlight and The Guardian. It may be that those sources have an agenda, but you must take it up with them. I suggest you contact the Press Complaints Council, get the sources to publish retractions, and then we can correct the article. TFD (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:British National Party. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is not acceptable behaviour on a collaborative project. – Richard BB 13:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "attack" other editors, I merely drew attention to the blatantly politically biased behaviour being shown by one individual editor. What damages the community is people who distort, twist and hide the truth for their own political ends. Or those who seek to deny others their basic human rights.

Truthprovails (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusing someone of having an agenda and declaring that they have no credibility when they are only trying to do their job as an editor is an attack. It is bad etiquette and persisting in this behaviour will only earn you a ban. Please do not do it again. – Richard BB 16:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not on contributors" - and what have you ever contributed Richard? Looking at your history on the BNP page reveals you just revert peoples edits - that's all you do all day. It's now gone 3:00 and you are still reverting edits which you were doing 6 or 7 hours ago - so i'm not exaggerating. Saxonshield (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Hello, Truthprovails. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Richard BB 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems on BNP Page

Problems on the British National Party have been going on for years. What is the most shocking is that 'Holocaust Denial' was added the the BNP ideology box for over 6 months. It has since thankfully been removed. There are certain users biased against the BNP who sit/moniter this page all day. I think the BNP page has a record for having the most amount of edits reverted in a single day. If you go through the history you will see 50 or more edits months back were reverted. Its been a warzone for ages. How can we go forward? Firstly lets point out some improvements have been made. All their policies were updated, as their views on race. The problem is though there is a lot of biased/fake/non-sourced (e.g. dead-linked) material which are clear smears or lies against the BNP. Someone needs to go through every single one of them and double check. I would also point out never claim the article is baised or call someone an anti-BNP on the page - it gets you banned very quick. I already got a warning for saying this. You can however speak your mind on your own my my personal userpage. We both know the truth and what is going on. This wiki page is the first hit if you type 'bnp' on a searchengine, i would say its costing the BNP loads of votes and you get misinformed people coming here who might have the potential to vote BNP but then read the 'fascist' etc incorrect tags which stops them voting. Basically the anti-BNPer's on the article are loving it. So much for a democratic society. How many BNP etc members go to the Labour page to put lies about them? None. But for some reason the BNP wiki page has always attracted so many oddballs and haters who spend all their time smearing or lieing about the BNP to lose them votes. Saxonshield (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I will try to get your Violence against BNP re-added. All your reverts were removed. I added a family section to counter the nonsense about homosexuality on the article. I have no idea why it mentions Richard Barnbrook's movie he directed, regardless of its content - it has nothing to do with BNP policy on homosexuality. Saxonshield (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the BNP page reveals they have banned 2 BNP supporters who wanted to make the article more neutral in the last year. I'm having a look at the history and there is a user called "multiculturalist" still on here who is still active on the BNP webpage, he has been warned for vandalising it and insulting BNP members but is never banned. Great NPOV name 'multiculturalist'... of course with a name like that he woudn't be biased against the BNP would he? Yet he is still allowed all over the BNP page. This place is a joke. Saxonshield (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Saxonshield, I'm new here and you're obviously a lot more clued up than I am about what is going on. Clearly we're dealing with people with a very biased agenda who will not allow any editing of this page that removes that bias or at least provides any balance. I admire your efforts anyway and thanks for trying to put back the Violence against the BNP which is important people are made aware of. Truthprovails (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, it might just be worth us copying the entire article and then editing it how it should be, unbiased and factual, and then hosting it on our own server and trying to get it ranked in Google highly. We can put a note at the top explaining why it exists separately from Wikipedia because of their biased agenda. Then at least people can compare the two pages and read some real facts about the BNP rather than gossip, smears and slander. If you're willing to collaborate with me, we could do it together and I have my own servers to host it. Truthprovails (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware, Truthprovails, that Saxonshield has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. – Richard BB 20:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware I have raised all these issues on the Wikipedia noticeboard as a neutrality issue and requested that admin's intervene to examine the evidence. Truthprovails (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well; I think it would be best for all parties in the long run. – Richard BB 21:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

BNP FAQ

Dear Truthprevails - I reverted your changes to the FAQ since the existing FAQ was arrived at by consensus, and you seemed to be continuing an argument by other means. Please submit your proposed changes to discussion on the BNP talk page.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no faith in this page or the editors, who are all clearly anti-BNP with political agendas and a strong bias. Therefore I won't waste any further time trying to re-submit my amendments or additions, which were only ever intended to bring some balance and unbiased factual information to what is let's face it, a very biased anti-BNP article. My comments here will serve to illustrate that point if people wish to view them, and I think I will leave it at that. I will however be duplicating the entire page and the FAQ which I have saved and hosting it on a separate server which you will have no control over. Another possibility is that myself and other unbiased editors could start a new BNP-related page and link to our off-site main page as a real BNP Wikipedia page. Truthprovails (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)